RE: What if we burned the us and state constitutions?

RE: What if we burned the us and state constitutions? (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion

Message

DesideriScuri -> RE: What if we burned the us and state constitutions? (1/29/2013 5:36:19 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: ClassIsInSession The government produces nothing therefore cannot in reality give or take anything, except through stealing it. A robin hood complex if you will. And therein lies the problem. The government robs from Peter to pay Paul, and Paul is always happy. And this party's Paul is different than that party's Paul. That's why the pendulum swings back and forth. If the government would stay out of people's affair and let contracts be binding quite simply, we could deal with individuals (which is the idea of liberty) rather than collectives that often either loosely align or disenfranchise out right "groups" of people. Theft is not the only mode of Government acquisition. Theft can only be ascribed to taking of money for programs or activities that aren't authorized by the US Constitution. It is not theft to collect taxes to support paying the President, for instance. It is when the Government is acting out from under the Constitution that it would be accurate to consider taxation to pay for those activities as theft.

MrRodgers -> RE: What if we burned the us and state constitutions? (1/29/2013 11:17:32 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: BamaD quote: ORIGINAL: Politesub53 quote: ORIGINAL: MrRodgers quote: ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri quote: ORIGINAL: Moonhead That government exists to enforce that equality rather than making it easier for those in a privileged position to exploit those below them is at the heart of most lefty philosophy that doesn't renounce governance as a bad idea and conentrate on voluntary co-operation instead, you'll find. That's just far Left rhetoric and not true by any measure. Best of luck to you. In fact Moonhead here is being contradictory. Everyone is endowed by certain inalienable rights by our creator...not govt. Govt. is formed as a necessaery evil to protect those rights...not outcomes. (privilege) That the govt. has provided additional 'rights' and protected outcomes (results) is the natural venality found in mankind that govt. continues to fail to address. For example...the corporation. It has no basis in civil society yet govt. allows it formation to establish certain new economic rights that now have been extended to constitutional rights beyond property rights. There's the bastardiztion of govt. and most obvioulsy found in property rights hence the original formation of virtually all govts. in history to protect the right of certain people, the right of ownership of certain other people as chattel property, without any concern over their right to liberty and the pursuit of hapiness. The further bastardization of govt. changes outcomes by virtue of granting civil (legal) rights...to the corporation. Your creator has given me no rights at all. Then you have no rights, only the privliges granted by gov the gov gives and the gov can take away Incorrect. The concept of a creator is in an academic sense only, I exist (I have been created) therefore, I have those rights. To the extent I am not allowed to exercise those rights, govt. has failed to protect them and is guilty of malfeasence in that it was created to do just that. I still have those rights but govt. can infringe upon them or allow someone else or entity to infringe upon them. Historically yes, govt. has been the guilty party in that failure, or co-opting of those rights and it is up to me to leave or remove that govt. All who exist, have those rights and true to historical form, man is venal and at almost no time in history has govt. perfectly protected those rights. The west in general and the US in particular has for most of last century, attmepted to protect most of those rights. All govts. now are acting in either complete failure or are on the way to failing to protect those rights.

MrRodgers -> RE: What if we burned the us and state constitutions? (1/29/2013 11:21:19 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Moonhead When you can vote for your creator, then the argument that I'm being "contradictory" rather than paraphrasing the British tradition of wet liberalism might hold some water. Read some Ruskin or Betham. Refer to my last post.

Nosathro -> RE: What if we burned the us and state constitutions? (1/29/2013 11:28:41 AM)
I am more for Scorates arguement for obeying the law... Question: Do we have a moral obligation to obey the laws of the state? Argument I. The Argument from Gratitude P1: The state has provided benefits for its citizens. P2: We should be grateful to those who provide us benefits (i.e., it is morally obligatory to do so). P3: We should display our gratitude by obeying the laws of the state. Therefore, we do have a moral obligation to obey the laws of the State. Argument II. The Social Contract Argument P1: By not leaving Athens, you’ve agreed to obey the laws. P2: You should keep those agreements you’ve consensually entered into. Therefore, you’re obligated to obey the laws of Athens.

DesideriScuri -> RE: What if we burned the us and state constitutions? (1/29/2013 11:34:08 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Nosathro I am more for Scorates arguement for obeying the law... Question: Do we have a moral obligation to obey the laws of the state? Argument I. The Argument from Gratitude P1: The state has provided benefits for its citizens. P2: We should be grateful to those who provide us benefits (i.e., it is morally obligatory to do so). P3: We should display our gratitude by obeying the laws of the state. Therefore, we do have a moral obligation to obey the laws of the State. Argument II. The Social Contract Argument P1: By not leaving Athens, you’ve agreed to obey the laws. P2: You should keep those agreements you’ve consensually entered into. Therefore, you’re obligated to obey the laws of Athens. Well put! Well, unless you didn't want tyranny and Government oppression.

Moonhead -> RE: What if we burned the us and state constitutions? (1/29/2013 11:35:02 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: MrRodgers quote: ORIGINAL: Moonhead When you can vote for your creator, then the argument that I'm being "contradictory" rather than paraphrasing the British tradition of wet liberalism might hold some water. Read some Ruskin or Betham. Refer to my last post. Which is a reasonable point (it's pretty inarguable that most governments are blatantly reneging on their obligations to their electorates), but doesn't actually have any bearing on the hypothetical case of a wet liberal utopia. (It could even be argued that you've raised the problem of people being governed by consent, and the fact that people who don't give a flying fuck about the political climate they live in have effectively consented to absolutely anything that the the ruling class/elected pseudo aristocracy wants to do to them.)

MrRodgers -> RE: What if we burned the us and state constitutions? (1/29/2013 11:55:25 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri quote: ORIGINAL: Nosathro I am more for Scorates arguement for obeying the law... Question: Do we have a moral obligation to obey the laws of the state? Argument I. The Argument from Gratitude P1: The state has provided benefits for its citizens. P2: We should be grateful to those who provide us benefits (i.e., it is morally obligatory to do so). P3: We should display our gratitude by obeying the laws of the state. Therefore, we do have a moral obligation to obey the laws of the State. Argument II. The Social Contract Argument P1: By not leaving Athens, you’ve agreed to obey the laws. P2: You should keep those agreements you’ve consensually entered into. Therefore, you’re obligated to obey the laws of Athens. Well put! Well, unless you didn't want tyranny and Government oppression. You've got that right. The 'state' doesn't provide shit...people do. The starving Roman slave loved being provided the benefit of all that 'senate' grain handed out...he could now eat. Sure did get the vote out and for just the right guy.

HarryVanWinkle -> RE: What if we burned the us and state constitutions? (1/29/2013 12:03:10 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: ClassIsInSession The government produces nothing therefore cannot in reality give or take anything, except through stealing it. A robin hood complex if you will. And therein lies the problem. The government robs from Peter to pay Paul, and Paul is always happy. And this party's Paul is different than that party's Paul. That's why the pendulum swings back and forth. If the government would stay out of people's affair and let contracts be binding quite simply, we could deal with individuals (which is the idea of liberty) rather than collectives that often either loosely align or disenfranchise out right "groups" of people. The government produces nothing? You're talking about the same government that created the Internet? The same government that created the Panama Canal? The same government that created the Interstate Highway system and most of the other highways in the country? The same government which created the moon program, which required computers small enough to fit in a spacecraft which created the impetus that led to the personal computer? I call bullshit on "the government creates nothing." I have neither the time nor the desire to spend much time researching it, but if I did I could name you dozens of things that the government either created or brought about the creation of by creating the legal framework to allow private industry to create, such as the country's railroad system. I will grant you that private enterprise and individual initiative is a far greater creative power than government. But even there, it is often the legal infrastructure, created, maintained and enforced by government that that makes it possible for those creators to profit from their creations, giving them the motivation to create them.

BamaD -> RE: What if we burned the us and state constitutions? (1/29/2013 12:48:38 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: HarryVanWinkle quote: ORIGINAL: ClassIsInSession The government produces nothing therefore cannot in reality give or take anything, except through stealing it. A robin hood complex if you will. And therein lies the problem. The government robs from Peter to pay Paul, and Paul is always happy. And this party's Paul is different than that party's Paul. That's why the pendulum swings back and forth. If the government would stay out of people's affair and let contracts be binding quite simply, we could deal with individuals (which is the idea of liberty) rather than collectives that often either loosely align or disenfranchise out right "groups" of people. The government produces nothing? You're talking about the same government that created the Internet? The same government that created the Panama Canal? The same government that created the Interstate Highway system and most of the other highways in the country? The same government which created the moon program, which required computers small enough to fit in a spacecraft which created the impetus that led to the personal computer? I call bullshit on "the government creates nothing." I have neither the time nor the desire to spend much time researching it, but if I did I could name you dozens of things that the government either created or brought about the creation of by creating the legal framework to allow private industry to create, such as the country's railroad system. I will grant you that private enterprise and individual initiative is a far greater creative power than government. But even there, it is often the legal infrastructure, created, maintained and enforced by government that that makes it possible for those creators to profit from their creations, giving them the motivation to create them. All of which is bought and paid for and all the work done by the people.

HarryVanWinkle -> RE: What if we burned the us and state constitutions? (1/29/2013 2:36:33 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: BamaD All of which is bought and paid for and all the work done by the people. You're expecting maybe the Martians to buy it? The Invisible Man who lives in the sky? And the work WAS indeed done by the people. Who were paid for it.

BamaD -> RE: What if we burned the us and state constitutions? (1/29/2013 11:15:30 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: HarryVanWinkle quote: ORIGINAL: BamaD All of which is bought and paid for and all the work done by the people. You're expecting maybe the Martians to buy it? The Invisible Man who lives in the sky? And the work WAS indeed done by the people. Who were paid for it. With money taken from them by government so government still didn't create anything at best it channels what the people create

jlf1961 -> RE: What if we burned the us and state constitutions? (1/29/2013 11:30:13 PM)
The role of any government is simple to protect the rights of the citizens and complicate the hell out of everything else to the point where none of what they do makes sense. There are obsolete and dumb laws at every level from Federal down to local. For instance, it is still illegal in Florida to have sex with a porcupine. In my town, it is illegal to bring you car into the city without first parking at the city limits and walking down town telling everyone with a horse you are bringing you car into town. Uh I think the second one can be repealed.

DesideriScuri -> RE: What if we burned the us and state constitutions? (1/30/2013 4:30:56 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: jlf1961 The role of any government is simple to protect the rights of the citizens and complicate the hell out of everything else to the point where none of what they do makes sense. There are obsolete and dumb laws at every level from Federal down to local. For instance, it is still illegal in Florida to have sex with a porcupine. In my town, it is illegal to bring you car into the city without first parking at the city limits and walking down town telling everyone with a horse you are bringing you car into town. Uh I think the second one can be repealed. Maybe the ER's in FLA are already too full to deal with, and utterly under-equipped, all the quill-removals?

Ronnie1986 -> RE: What if we burned the us and state constitutions? (1/30/2013 4:04:28 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Real0ne Abolished all the state legislatures. Would you have any rights? What is the minimum requirement to have a right? If you do not have any rights why not? If you do have rights what would they be? Anyone ever ponder that? just about everyone i personally know would still have all there rights... the reason being they have guns!

Politesub53 -> RE: What if we burned the us and state constitutions? (1/30/2013 4:13:21 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: BamaD With money taken from them by government so government still didn't create anything at best it channels what the people create Since you worked for the government, wouldnt your wages technically be theirs ? [8\|] I am always amazed how many people who get paid by the government and use roads built via the government seem to think government is a bad thing.

nighthawk3569 -> RE: What if we burned the us and state constitutions? (1/30/2013 5:09:11 PM)
quote: I have actually different idea: what if we follow the constitution (restore the republic)? Otherwise, anarchy is not actually so bad option. It is worth trying. There are ideologies and systems worked out to proceed. For example: http://www.freedomainradio.com/Videos.aspx Best idea I've heard yet!!! 'hawk

Real0ne -> RE: What if we burned the us and state constitutions? (1/30/2013 5:48:47 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: MrRodgers quote: ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri quote: ORIGINAL: Nosathro I am more for Scorates arguement for obeying the law... Question: Do we have a moral obligation to obey the laws of the state? Argument I. The Argument from Gratitude P1: The state has provided benefits for its citizens. P2: We should be grateful to those who provide us benefits (i.e., it is morally obligatory to do so). P3: We should display our gratitude by obeying the laws of the state. Therefore, we do have a moral obligation to obey the laws of the State. Argument II. The Social Contract Argument P1: By not leaving Athens, you’ve agreed to obey the laws. P2: You should keep those agreements you’ve consensually entered into. Therefore, you’re obligated to obey the laws of Athens. Well put! Well, unless you didn't want tyranny and Government oppression. You've got that right. The 'state' doesn't provide shit...people do. The starving Roman slave loved being provided the benefit of all that 'senate' grain handed out...he could now eat. Sure did get the vote out and for just the right guy. Yes I think people foget the many faces of so called law. we have law and we have equity. anytime you see a word using benefic.... you are talking equity be it true equity which is rare in this country now days, and the bastardized version of statutory equity. our law came from england and the king sat on anything civil and common etc and the church right beside him with ecclesiastic law which evolved into the form we have today, with basically the same rules as it was back then. http://apps.leg.wa.gov/wac/default.aspx?cite=388-835-0015 Rule 3.2. Petition, answer and reply. (a) On or before the return day fixed in the citation or order, and in all other cases within twenty days after service upon him of a copy of any petition, a party opposing the granting of the prayer of the petition shall file an answer admitting or denying the averments of fact of the petition and specifically stating his objections thereto and averring the facts relied upon by him. http://www.pacode.com/secure/data/231/chapter8003/chap8003toc.html To invoke full jurisdiction equity court, in an equity pleading you "pray" for relief. benefits are elements of trusts. usufruct

Real0ne -> RE: What if we burned the us and state constitutions? (1/30/2013 6:02:55 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: nighthawk3569 quote: I have actually different idea: what if we follow the constitution (restore the republic)? Otherwise, anarchy is not actually so bad option. It is worth trying. There are ideologies and systems worked out to proceed. For example: http://www.freedomainradio.com/Videos.aspx Best idea I've heard yet!!! 'hawk I htink we have the republic, dont we? Unless you are thinking of something else I think of the senate as republic was adopted from roman laws. civili. Anarchy kool, yeh... I suppose if there were one person on the planet there would be no doubt about rights. As soon as you add a second and person one plants an apple tree and lays out his turf he then expects others to respect "its mine, not yours", hence the creation of a right. I labored for me, I therefore have the "exclusive right". Another version is that my actions do not interfere with your rights or cause damage to you therefore I claim it as a my right. a group steps in and draws a line on a map and makes a rule that everyone inside that boundary must have their lawn no longer than 4" is a violation of your right. You have the right to have your lawn at 6 inches or even to let it go to seed. Government expedience tramples the rights of man. The courts are tossed in with the government and they should be completely separate. The reason for this is that a country a nation can live function just fine with out government, however people cannot live just fine without a system to arbitrate who has the right when diagreements among well meaning peole occur. So if we have a means of determining "rights" can anarchy really exist?

BamaD -> RE: What if we burned the us and state constitutions? (1/30/2013 9:54:48 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Politesub53 quote: ORIGINAL: BamaD With money taken from them by government so government still didn't create anything at best it channels what the people create Since you worked for the government, wouldnt your wages technically be theirs ? [8\|] I am always amazed how many people who get paid by the government and use roads built via the government seem to think government is a bad thing. You miss the point, at no point in the process did government create anything they just moved peoples assests to projects they decieded were good. It has no bearing on government being good or bad it just is.

Politesub53 -> RE: What if we burned the us and state constitutions? (1/31/2013 3:23:04 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: BamaD quote: ORIGINAL: Politesub53 quote: ORIGINAL: BamaD With money taken from them by government so government still didn't create anything at best it channels what the people create Since you worked for the government, wouldnt your wages technically be theirs ? [8\|] I am always amazed how many people who get paid by the government and use roads built via the government seem to think government is a bad thing. You miss the point, at no point in the process did government create anything they just moved peoples assests to projects they decieded were good. It has no bearing on government being good or bad it just is. I`m not missing anything. The moon landings, and therefore all the technological spin offs, wouldnt have taken place if not for being a government venture. I cant believe some people can be so dumb as to not see this.

Page: << < prev 1 [2] 3 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.0625